Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

“For the average American watching it there wasn’t a context as to why the repeal of "don’t ask, don’t tell" is significant,” Osburn said. “If he had said, ‘I support the 60,000 gay Americans serving in the military,’ it would have helped communicate to the American people why this is the piece of legislation he wants to work on.”

Osburn also said the image of the reaction of the joint chiefs did not send a good message.

In addition, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama’s 2008 presidential rival and a key congressional voice on military issues, called the president’s plan a “mistake.”

“This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels,” McCain said, without defending the policy in detail.

Obama’s phrasing on "don’t ask, don’t tell," a promise to “work” with Congress and the military this year, did not set a deadline for repeal. It seemed instead designed to leave Obama wiggle room for not completing the repeal by the end of the year.

“There is no deadline and no plan. “It's very troubling,” said Socarides, who recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal asking when Obama “will show the same kind of concern for the constitutional rights of gay American service members as he has for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay.”

Repealing "don’t ask, don’t tell" has some support in Congress. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has personally called on Obama to repeal the law. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said this week he plans to hold hearings on the law in early February. Levin was set to hold a hearing this week, but the White House asked him to push it back until after Obama’s State of the Union address.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network pointed out in its statement that Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) ”have made clear” that 2010 is the year to repeal the 1993 law.

Jeff Krehely, director of LGBT Research and Communications Project, and Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, called Obama’s promise “an important and historic step toward ending this outdated and discriminatory policy.”

“After eight years of war in Afghanistan, and almost seven in Iraq, we can no longer afford to keep talented and patriotic men and women from serving their country in the military solely on the basis of their sexual orientation,” they said in a joint statement.

Critics of repealing the law say if gays served openly in the military, it would dampen morale and undermine the system.

Obama rejected that notion in his speech, when he spoke broadly of discrimination and diversity.

“We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal,” Obama said, “that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.”

If it could be shown that eliminating DADT would hurt military morale & unit cohesiveness, would you want it Repealed anyway ?

Or would you want strong Guardians that protect you from murder by Islamic Terrorists ?

Louis,

I don't believe you have thought your statement through. How can anybody think of members of our military as "strong guardians" only if they remain in the closet? So by uttering the words "I'm gay", they are no longer "strong" or "guardians"? or worthy of the uniform? not even when giving their lives for you and I?

To me, statements like yours, are a huge disservice to our men and women in uniform. To assert that unity cohesiveness will be affected, is to disregard the professionalism of our troops. To undermine their morale and commitment to us, and to one another. May God bless our troops, each and everyone of them.

If it could be shown that eliminating DADT would hurt military morale & unit cohesiveness, would you want it Repealed anyway ?

Or would you want strong Guardians that protect you from murder by Islamic Terrorists ?

Ask yourself, Louis L., would you like the United States Armed Forces to be just as strong, tough, and kick-ass as the Israeli Dëfense Forces? Gays have served openly in the Israeli military for the last 17 years. Surrounded on all sides by enemies who hunger for the destruction of Israel, the IDF has fought countless incursions, battles, and full-blown wars. Last time I checked, they've won every single one of them. I'd say the IDF has more experience with Islamic terrorists than anyone and clearly they don't feel that gays in the military weakens their armed services.

Just another erosion of our military by so-called progressives. They will not stop until we, as a nation, are rendered impotent militarily. First, they attack our economy, our families, and now our military. Thanks Barry.

And how is this relevant to the challenges facing our Nation? I wonder how many Jobs this will save or create? Maybe for lawyers as this represents the opening of another front in the culture war; marriage and entitlements for same sex-legal unions of military members being the next obvious step.

Talk about a recruiting tool… Join the military and be all the gay you can be; get married with household entitlements!!! Today, this wedge is already present among single and married couples in the military as it regards to financial benefits.

So the hell with the increase in sexual harassment cases to be equally met by charges of discrimination and the hell with additional regulations and special cases to be levied upon our fighting men and women. What is important here is the gay-lesbian cause, not the effectiveness of our fighting force. And NO, I am not inferring straight people are more or less effective at any specific task; I am referring to a fighting force weighted down by regulations attempting to dictate behaviors.

I don't have a doubt they could be effective in the military but I had a gay roomate in tech school and I can tell you personnally it wasn't a comfortable position to be forced into. I say forced because I had no choice but to live with this guy. While he didn't make any advances how do you think I felt having to share my living space with someone who is attracted to the same sex. That's like having me room with a woman. I may not make advances towards her but I like women and naturally would be curious.

I am certainly not the biggest gay supporter. But having said that, other countries have gays in the military and everywhere else. A lot of gays are medics and I don't believe when you have a bullet in your rear, that you woulnd;t mind if she/he gets the bullet out before you get an infection. So what is this phobia all about. If you tell a woman that your are attracted to someone else, she normally leaves you alone, if she is a decent person. If you tell a gay you are straight, I would think most respect that And if they don't they would have to know there are terrible consequences when they step over the line. , I would think. Gays are here to stay. Unless we come up with a magic pill and then they probably will fight it tooth by nail.

Try ? He will try ? Like he really tried to get His healthcare reform passed ? Ya right. Just more empty pledges from a DO NOTHING President. The Democrats are scared and he is willing to say anything to keep votes. If the Gays believe that he will try, when he could just order it done. Then fall for it. How long are you going to let him string you along ? Like he tried to end the War ? You see we are still there and I'd be willing to bet we are there long after this year. He will come up with some excuse, wait and see !

I hear you Ken in Grand Rapids. I root for Obama but he really has to deliver. Regarding DADT.... some people are gay and some are not. Big deal. When some gay soldier takes a bullet for some macho homophobe- I bet he changes his views.

I do not understand what the problem is, why does everyone have to know or for that fact why must everyone be forced to accept what is contrary to nature as normal?

I for one am sick and tired of the Gay agenda and it's friends on the left.

It is jobs,and the constitution, not worrying about someones sexual preferences!

Shut up or get out of the military!

It is like the idiots that sign up for the bonuses and education money in the reserves,and when they get their marching orders exclaim, I did not sign up to fight! Rules are meant to be followed without them there is chaos.

Having served in the Army, I can tell you this would be a very bad idea. And as someone mentioned before a lot of the folks are young men and women who have just graduated high school. They may not be equipped to deal the the pressures of living in the barracks with someone of the opposite sexual orientation. And that applies to both sides -the gays and the hetros.

Having served in the Army, I can tell you this would be a very bad idea. And as someone mentioned before a lot of the folks are young men and women who have just graduated high school. They may not be equipped to deal the the pressures of living in the barracks with someone of the opposite sexual orientation. And that applies to both sides -the gays and the hetros.

President Obama and his very Liberal Democratic spin doctors and advisers in The White House once again prove that they are standard partisan activists who feel they must criticize anyone they don't agree with. I fell asleep during the State of the Union speech last night, but was very surprised that the president took such a strident tone, once again making a priority in ending President Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", supported by his more moderate Democratic Congress. Obama is pandering yet again to homosexual activists who supported him during his campaign, so this is just "transparent" pay-back, with clearly immoral overtones. Obama proves that he is out of touch with consensus opinions on moral issues and that he is a Left-Wing Liberal Democratic ideologue. Obama and his staff and advisers dumbly refuse to learn to govern from the middle, and they will surely lose increasing numbers of Independent voters in the upcoming November elections, if this is all he can make a priority of his second year. It is outrageous that radical gay activist Kevin Jennings remains in his position as safe-schools "czar", and that lesbian activist Chai Feldblum has been renominated to head the EEOC by Obama. Neither are qualified and seem only to have been chosen because the president agrees with their radical left homosexual agenda. Frankly, it's morally repugnant and Congress needs to reject them. What remains to be seen is if the Obama administration will seek to overturn The Defense of Marriage Act and also permit homosexuals and lesbians to be married in our Nation's Capital. Obama lacks sound judgment and his advisers and assistants seem to be chosen for their out-of-the mainstream Liberal and Progressive ideologies.

Having served in the Army, I can tell you this would be a very bad idea. And as someone mentioned before a lot of the folks are young men and women who have just graduated high school. They may not be equipped to deal the the pressures of living in the barracks with someone of the opposite sexual orientation. And that applies to both sides -the gays and the hetros.

First and foremost, thank you for your service. Now, what you fail to acknowledge is that times have changed. Look at the polls and ask yourself why is homosexuality more accepted today than when you were in high school? Today an 18 year old has likely shared many experiences with his/her fellow out gay friends / classmates. They realize sexuality is a natural trait and it is not big deal. We can't judge our youth with our own prejudice, it is not fair to them to equate their perspective to your own internalized homophobic views.